• FullPenguin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      6 days ago

      Newsom’s a tool, but it’s very obvious why this is the line he’s walking. And it’s not to pull one over on his constituents.

      He’s pushing for a Federal tax over a state one is because a state one will just push billionaires to other states. Billionaires are certainly not stopped by a state line, a law without teeth is just theater.

      We absolutely need a federal wealth tax, along with consequences for individuals and corporations that flee to international tax havens.

      • BigMacHole@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        CORRECT! A ONE TIME Tax is going to ANNIHILATE the Major Taxpayers! Major Job Creators! People who pay the least tax while taking the MOST Welfare!

      • wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 days ago

        Historical consequences of a wealth tax:

        Country Outcome Key Effects Status
        France Low revenue, capital flight Millionaire emigration; investment decline Repealed (2017)
        Sweden Avoidance, offshore assets Wealth moved abroad Repealed (2007)
        Denmark Distorted savings High admin cost Repealed (1997)
        Germany Legal + admin issues Hard-to-value assets Suspended (1997)
        Norway Still active Some relocation; moderate revenue Active
        Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Iceland Similar issues Low yield, high avoidance Repealed

        In other words, it’s just bad tax policy, hard to track and introduces administrative burden, and encourages further obfuscation. Alternative: Income tax reform is a better solution.

        • Lasherz@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          6 days ago

          Relocation of billionaires is a good thing if nothing else to kill their credibility that they in any way shape or form give a fuck about this country. Secondarily it also makes them easier to sanction.

        • ToiletFlushShowerScream@piefed.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 days ago

          It looks like your information was sourced from the Tax Foundation, which apparently has a murky history of cherry picking economic data to solely support business-conservative causes in Europe. The Reception section of their Wikipedia page will get you started on how much to trust them for accurate analyses. Just FYI.

    • blitzen@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      California already taxes high earners more than any other state. I think the idea that a further wealth tax (which I wholeheartedly support) would be more easily avoidable at the state level.

      I have no doubt Newsom is speaking from both sides of his mouth on a difficult political problem for him, but all else being equal a federal wealth tax is a better idea than a state one.

      • orclev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 days ago

        In theory a federal one is better but it’s unrealistic. It’s going to be hard enough getting a state wealth tax passed, it’s essentially impossible to get a federal one passed. For that to happen you’d need to give Democrats complete control of both houses of Congress and the presidency, and even then it would be a struggle. With Republicans in control of anything it’s a complete pipe dream. So rather than going for the perfect solution that isn’t going to happen anytime soon it’s better to go for the imperfect one that has a good chance of actually happening.